Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[whichphilosophy]

Nope - this would apply to things like drunk driving or scaring someone where harm was not intended but resulted. If harm was intended, but just not as much as happened then that's not going to reduce the crime.

Your honor, I only stabbed him to cause pain and suffering. I didn't mean to kill him.

M'lord, the deceased, tripped and fell on my client's knife as he was sharpening a pencil.

 

[Derec]

"The test case"? There has been only one case in all of Maryland's history that has been prosecuted under this charge?

I don't know how many people were successfully prosecuted under the "depraved heart" doctrine. I know that there was one case linked here to demonstrate the doctrine and it involved a deliberate shooting. Of course, when you shoot someone it is obvious that there is a high risk of either death or serious injury. With a rough ride there is only a much smaller, and much less obvious risk. Therefore, the cases are not really analogous.

Or has there only been one such case linked to in this thread, and since it does not match the OP case 100% you feel comfortable saying it doesn't fit?

It doesn't even fit 10%.

As for "Prince concert grandstanding"... interesting choice of slur, and by "interesting" I mean you aren't fooling anyone.

It's not a slur, it's a pretty good description of what she's doing.

- - - Updated - - -

blame the prosecutor! Sure, a man is dead, but if we can make the prosecutor look bad, then maybe, just maybe this whole thing goes away because..

Removing Mosby would not make the case go away, it would merely lead to a different prosecutor being appointed. One that may not overcharge or seek out the spotlight (literally!) quite as much.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Derec,
Are you expecting the example to completely match this situation? You do realize that it is not up to you and me to determine what the definition of "depraved heart murder" is. The courts have defined it and the people of Maryland have not decided to pass a law to redefine it. A reckless act known to cause harm has been enough to convict in the past. If their was a rough ride with intent to cause harm, it would fit the definition. Now we do not know the evidence for prosecution's case or decision. For all we know the driver could have told dispatch or somebody else he was going to cause harm to Freddie - premeditated, but not enough to get a first degree. <-- I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only offering it up as an example that we don't know what evidence the prosecution has. Yes, it could be overcharging or there could be more to the story.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

blame the prosecutor! Sure, a man is dead, but if we can make the prosecutor look bad, then maybe, just maybe this whole thing goes away because..

Removing Mosby would not make the case go away, it would merely lead to a different prosecutor being appointed. One that may not overcharge or seek out the spotlight (literally!) quite as much.

Yeah I know, this has nothing to do with anything but you trying to rail on about a power hungry prosecutor that charged officers in a death of a person who was in their custody. She overcharged them! And that means a lot because being found guilty of manslaughter when you were tried also for Murder 2 is the most dehumanizing thing to happen to a man, I mean other than being put on your death bed while in police custody.

I'm just so glad you are keeping all of this stuff in perspective. We all know the officers won't have legal defense teams and will be at the mercy of probably another fame seeking person on the bench!

 

[Derec]

Both are E350s. As an aside you can (usually) infer this from the engine size as that's how the Merc naming scheme works. Ditto BMW, where the first digit is the series, and the second two denote the engine - ex. a 318i is a 3 series with a 1.8L engine. Both are known to have some wiggle room, such as the 328i and 335i both having the same 3.0L engine with the latter being turbocharged.

Well you can infer something about the engine size from the model number but vice versa as there are different models using same size engines.

And the point here was that the Ford E350 van is not anemic, not that it would be entering touring car races. Rent one yourself if you don't believe me.

I am not saying it is anemic but I doubt it has enough acceleration to forcefully slam somebody against a bolt in the rear door.
As far as touring car races, sure, although it depends who is driving.

For the same reason that cops can't stop you for wearing jeans on the off chance that they're counterfeit or for listening to an MP3 player on the off chance they're pirated. If carrying a knife is legal then that isn't sufficient grounds for them to search him to determine whether his knife is actually compliant.

SCOTUS has held that running from police in a high crime neighborhood constitutes sufficient 'reasonable suspicion' to stop and search. Finding (at least what looked like) an illegal knife is then enough to arrest.

Nope - this would apply to things like drunk driving or scaring someone where harm was not intended but resulted. If harm was intended, but just not as much as happened then that's not going to reduce the crime.

Citation needed.

 

[Derec]

Derec,
Are you expecting the example to completely match this situation?

No, but it should at least match the situation somewhat.

You do realize that it is not up to you and me to determine what the definition of "depraved heart murder" is. The courts have defined it and the people of Maryland have not decided to pass a law to redefine it.

The question is how the courts decided to define it. Does an act that carries a remote chance of death or serious injury qualify? Because the only case posted here involved the victim getting deliberately shot, which obviously has a very high chance of death or serious injury.

A reckless act known to cause harm has been enough to convict in the past. If their was a rough ride with intent to cause harm, it would fit the definition. Now we do not know the evidence for prosecution's case or decision. For all we know the driver could have told dispatch or somebody else he was going to cause harm to Freddie - premeditated, but not enough to get a first degree. <-- I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only offering it up as an example that we don't know what evidence the prosecution has. Yes, it could be overcharging or there could be more to the story.

Yes, appeal to mystery evidence. I bet you thought Mike Nifong had some mystery evidence too.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No, but it should at least match the situation somewhat.

You do realize that it is not up to you and me to determine what the definition of "depraved heart murder" is. The courts have defined it and the people of Maryland have not decided to pass a law to redefine it.

The question is how the courts decided to define it. Does an act that carries a remote chance of death or serious injury qualify? Because the only case posted here involved the victim getting deliberately shot, which obviously has a very high chance of death or serious injury.

You really need to look this stuff up. As in the actual law and interpretation. We've been over it several times.

A reckless act known to cause harm has been enough to convict in the past. If their was a rough ride with intent to cause harm, it would fit the definition. Now we do not know the evidence for prosecution's case or decision. For all we know the driver could have told dispatch or somebody else he was going to cause harm to Freddie - premeditated, but not enough to get a first degree. <-- I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only offering it up as an example that we don't know what evidence the prosecution has. Yes, it could be overcharging or there could be more to the story.

Yes, appeal to mystery evidence. I bet you thought Mike Nifong had some mystery evidence too.

I am not appealing to "mystery evidence". The truth is we do not know what exactly the prosecution's evidence is. The presumption that she is incompetent is mere speculation. She shows great competence by keeping the details away from the press until trial. You also notice that the defense is doing the same thing. It is very possible that there is strong damning evidence out there, but we as the public simply do not know at this time. If not, she may be working to get a plea deal. This would also be a sign of competence. The defense has petitioned to have her taken off the case. This would not be for incompetence. If she were incompetent, they would want her on the case. Rather I believe it is for one of two reasons: (1) she has significant evidence against the defendants or (2) the defense is trying to get a more malleable (or incompetent prosecutor) onto the case.

 

[Deepak]

Well you can infer something about the engine size from the model number but vice versa as there are different models using same size engines.

Which is where price comes in.

Citation needed.

I've already cited in this exact thread but here's another one http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

 

[dismal]

The truth is we do not know what exactly the prosecution's evidence is.

Well, given she announced the charges before the investigation was complete even she didn't know what the prosecution's evidence was.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which is where price comes in.

Citation needed.

I've already cited in this exact thread but here's another one http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

And it also showed why this is an easier civil case than criminal case. Not shackling him down and then getting hurt in the car accident would be enough for civil lawsuits

For this case the prosecuter will have to show 3 things for the depraved heart charge

1) The driver knew that he was unchained
2) It was a rough ride
3) And that this was above and beynond just manslaughter.

It is it possible, yes, but I think it might need some things we haven't seen yet.

 

[laughing dog]

The truth is we do not know what exactly the prosecution's evidence is.

Well, given she announced the charges before the investigation was complete even she didn't know what the prosecution's evidence was.

She certainly knew what evidence they had at the time of the announcement. Are you under the false impression that the prosecution must have all the possible evidence in the world before filing charges?

 

[Deepak]

Which is where price comes in.



I've already cited in this exact thread but here's another one http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

And it also showed why this is an easier civil case than criminal case. Not shackling him down and then getting hurt in the car accident would be enough for civil lawsuits

For this case the prosecuter will have to show 3 things for the depraved heart charge

1) The driver knew that he was unchained
2) It was a rough ride
3) And that this was above and beynond just manslaughter.

It is it possible, yes, but I think it might need some things we haven't seen yet.

The evidence will answer that question - and ultimately the charge does not preclude a jury convicting on manslaughter. But these cries of 'overcharge' are silly.

Had the victim been a police officer and the perpetrators not - people would be calling for blood not complaining about 'overcharging'.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well, given she announced the charges before the investigation was complete even she didn't know what the prosecution's evidence was.

She certainly knew what evidence they had at the time of the announcement. Are you under the false impression that the prosecution must have all the possible evidence in the world before filing charges?

They need enough of course to arrest someone built a case however. The court of course should have indefeasible evidence to secure a conviction.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't know how many people were successfully prosecuted under the "depraved heart" doctrine...

Yet you choose to speak so authoritatively on the subject, even going so far as to attempt to snark at me about the "test case"

Perhaps, if you wish to make a point, you should do your own research to support that point.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Apparently your two page non-responsive derail was so you could completely ignore the fact that "intent" is NOT required under "second degree murder".

And you are ignoring the fact that the test case for "depraved heart" involved a victim who's been shot by the perp, which is not even close to the rough ride. The Prince concert grandstanding prosecutor will not be able to prove this to any unbiased jury.

This is a common law remedy which punishes unintentional homicide as murder if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness. So rough ride could easily be covered if this caused the death. If the perp shot at aimlessly for fun and killed someone, this could possibly be covered under the Depraved Heart doctrine

See http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...yed-to-kadish/homicide/commonwealth-v-malone/

When an individual commits an act of gross recklessness without regard to the probability that death to another is likely to result, that individual exhibits the state of mind required to uphold a conviction of manslaughter even if the individual did not intend for death to ensue.

Malice, the state of mind required for murder, is evidenced where an individual performs an uncalled for act in disregard of its likely harmful effects on another

Each case has different scenarios and sequences of events.

 

[Derec]

This is a common law remedy which punishes unintentional homicide as murder if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness. So rough ride could easily be covered if this caused the death. If the perp shot at aimlessly for fun and killed someone, this could possibly be covered under the Depraved Heart doctrine

It is interesting that all the examples offered involve shootings. That is an action that obviously carries a high risk of death or serious injury. To what extent that in transferable to giving somebody a rough ride
And if tactics like rough rides were widespread and condoned by the leadership, then Mosby needs to go after higher echelons of Baltimore police, including the commissioner.

 

[Derec]

I don't know how many people were successfully prosecuted under the "depraved heart" doctrine...

Yet you choose to speak so authoritatively on the subject, even going so far as to attempt to snark at me about the "test case"

Perhaps, if you wish to make a point, you should do your own research to support that point.

If you disagree, how about you find an example that is actually comparable. Challenge: find me a Maryland case of a "depraved heart" 2nd degree murder conviction where the act that led to death did not have a high risk of death or serious injury, i.e. risk comparable to giving somebody a "rough ride" rather than shooting somebody.

 

[Derec]

Had the victim been a police officer and the perpetrators not - people would be calling for blood not complaining about 'overcharging'.

If six non-police officers put a cop in a van that would be kidnapping, not arresting a suspect. They'd be facing 30 years even without death occurring. Any death would be felony murder on top of it, which would be first degree murder. "Depraved heart" would not even enter into it and nobody would complain about overcharging because the appropriate charge would be clear cut based on statutes and not rely on highly dubious parallels in case law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet you choose to speak so authoritatively on the subject, even going so far as to attempt to snark at me about the "test case"

Perhaps, if you wish to make a point, you should do your own research to support that point.

If you disagree, how about you find an example that is actually comparable. Challenge: find me a Maryland case of a "depraved heart" 2nd degree murder conviction where the act that led to death did not have a high risk of death or serious injury, i.e. risk comparable to giving somebody a "rough ride" rather than shooting somebody.

Driving without your seat belt on is high risk, but only if you are in an accident. The intent of a rough ride is to injure the person in custody. It would appear they did hurt him in custody during a rough ride. That the injury led to death wasn't intended, but jebus... they intended to hurt him and they did and it directly led to his death.

 

[Derec]

I've already cited in this exact thread but here's another one http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

From the transcript

Recklessness is defined in the criminal law as taking a risk you are aware of that could result in injury or death. And when we say it's a bad risk, a criminal risk, that comes to manslaughter, when we says it's an extreme risk, then it comes to depraved heart murder. And this gets used from time to time. The depraved heart language is old common law language.

So the question is, does giving somebody a "rough ride" constitute "bad risk" or "extreme risk"? I would say the former, which means it's not 2nd degree murder.

In any case it shows why we should no longer rely on medieval "common law" but rather have clear statutory language defining these things.